A Hoover Institution scholar continues to provide a fresh take on the state of California’s energy policies, highlighting their hidden agendas and examining their feasibility.

Previously, a CalWatchdog.com story covered Carson Bruno’s research showing that the state of California has far surpassed its 2020 goal of having 33 percent of electricity coming from renewable sources. So why isn’t this big news? Because according to state laws establishing the 33 percent goal, some renewable energy doesn’t count as renewable energy.

Bruno also makes a provocative point about Gov. Jerry Brown’s goals on another energy front:

California may be the greenest state in the nation. The Golden State’s renewable portfolio standard is among the nation’s most aggressive, the state’s cap-and-trade program is likely the most developed, and each legislative session lawmakers grapple over dozens of new environmental-based bills. … So it didn’t come as any surprise that during his 4th (and final) State of the State address, Jerry Brown focused heavily on taking California’s already aggressive climate change action to the next level. …

Brown [said the state would] double the energy efficiency of California’s buildings. …

This proposal is the most straightforward, but also may be the most difficult to achieve. Here’s why: California is already the national leader – coincidentally, since Jerry Brown was first governor – in energy conservation.

Conserving more would be akin to squeezing out more lemon juice from an already squeezed lemon: you’ll get a little, but not that much. Californians use approximately the same amount of energy they did 40 years ago as the rest of the nation has increased its use by roughly half. This is despite California’s population and economic output steadily increasing. California’s Mediterranean-like climate helps reduce energy use, but that can’t explain the full difference.

Here’s where the paradox comes in, however. We know how to get to the next step: technology. Smart metering enables consumers and providers to better understand their behavior to encourage conservation; new lighting technology and new advances in heating and cooling systems better reduce waste. But even with new technology, doubling efficiency while California continues to grow and after California has already squeezed a lot out of consumers won’t be easy.

‘Build it and they will come’ regulatory approach

There’s always been an element of “build it and they will come” to California environmental regulators’ habit of establishing goals that seem unrealistic but that the private sector manages to meet. More than a few engineers were skeptical that cars averaging 35 MPG was a realistic goal, but that’s now the federal mandate for coming years, as the Obama administration follows the California example of demanding change that seems daunting. As Car & Driver wrote, “as goes California, so goes the country.”

But there are two recent examples of California regulators going too far and retreating in embarrassment. In 2010, they backed down from a proposal to criminalize having under-inflated tires after I wrote about it on my U-T San Diego blog and John & Ken took up the cause on KFI AM 640. This was the informal analysis of the proposal from the California New Car Dealers Association:

(The) regs. CARB’s pushing through (released this week and subject to a 15 day comment period) … provides that the only times that consumers may decline a check and inflate service — they can never decline the service if it’s offered for free — is when they are charged for services AND if they can PROVE (with DOCUMENTATION!) that they’ve had their tires checked and inflated in the last 30 days, or if they WILL do so within the next week. It is unclear, but possible, that CARB could take enforcement action against the consumer if they don’t follow through with their promise?!

In 2009, California regulators also backed down from a tentative proposal to ban black paint on cars after facing incredulity from U.S. and Japanese automakers. Snopes treats this as a “mostly false” story. But I spoke with an executive for an auto paint company in 2009, and she said California air board staffers were absolutely serious about the idea in meetings early that year. That’s how it was treated by an auto-industry website.

2 comments

This push to environmentalism and renewables is a dangerous and greedy game played by crony democrats for the benefit of their donors.

Whether it is the unscientific ab-32 scam, where carbon prices are set out of state in violation of state constitutional public oversight requirements

Or CARBs borderline criminal funneling of ZEV credits to Tesla for a non existent battery swap capability, that only recently came online at Harris ranch in very limited invite only tests, with no clawback or penalties as required by law,

To the tortured and corrupted SGIP program that has inappropriately funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to fuel cell and battery companies for technologies that are dirtier and higher ghg emitting than the PGE power grid, and many times more expensive than alternatives, with no enforcement for blatant violations

To the ‘train to nowhere’ that is being supported by hook or by crook, would be a gross polluter compared to alternatives, grossly underfunded, but still intent on stealing prime farmland with EMINENT DOMAIN

To the whole water scam in our state where laws get passed to reduce state water use per person from 75 gpd to less than half that, when they are all the while maliciously and intentionally squandering 100 gpd per person, per day, or over 1.4 trillion gallons per year for little more than ecological experiments, so called environmental diversions, and aggressively blaming everyone else to deflect blame for their destructive decisions

Is there any wonder why the state is failing?

Wherever you see billions of dollars routed to political cronies, and trillions of gallons of water maliciously managed to damage ‘out of political favor’ conservative AG businesses, here are DEMOCRATS behind it.

Our Govenor is horribly misguided and senile at best, and an active and destructive participant at worst.

I care not which, but new blood and a back to basics approach to stare management is needed.

Running your vehicle’s air conditioning is no worse for your gas mileage than driving with your windows down. As your vehicle speeds up, air flow creates a drag against the vehicle, making the engine work harder and hurting gas mileage. In fact, air conditioning can be a more efficient option at higher speeds.

Write a Comment

Chris Reed

Chris Reed is a regular contributor to Cal Watchdog. Reed is an editorial writer for U-T San Diego. Before joining the U-T in July 2005, he was the opinion-page columns editor and wrote the featured weekly Unspin column for The Orange County Register. Reed was on the national board of the Association of Opinion Page Editors from 2003-2005. From 2000 to 2005, Reed made more than 100 appearances as a featured news analyst on Los Angeles-area National Public Radio affiliate KPCC-FM. From 1990 to 1998, Reed was an editor, metro columnist and film critic at the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in Ontario. Reed has a political science degree from the University of Hawaii (Hilo campus), where he edited the student newspaper, the Vulcan News, his senior year.
He is on Twitter: @chrisreed99.